To compel arbitration or stay pending proceedings under the UAA, however, a Missouri court must have jurisdiction over the arbitration matter. See H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Mo.App.W.D. 1990) (a court must be one of proper jurisdiction to entertain an application to stay arbitration proceedings under the UAA). The "source of the court's jurisdiction to act in arbitration matters is wholly derived from" the UAA. Artrip v. Samons Constr. Co., 54 S.W.3d 169, 172 (Ky.Ct.App. 2001).
Appellants assert in their first point that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant Respondents' motion to stay the arbitration under the UAA because the arbitration is located in another state. They rely primarily on this Court's decisions in H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.App.W.D.1990), and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Communications, Inc., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo.App.W.D.2003). In H.T.I., the parties entered into a sales contract containing an arbitration agreement calling for arbitration in New York City and governed by New York law. 785 S.W.2d at 111.
Gov't eMgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 857 (Mo.App. E.D.2004); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo.App. W.D.1990); Ascension Health v. Coop. Health Care Ventures, LLC (No. 09SL–CC0908, 2009); PerfectStop Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank, 231 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App. W.D.2007); and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Comm., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). The cases were all decided prior to Webb.
Gov't eMgmt. Solutions, Inc. v. Am. Arbitration Assoc., Inc., 142 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110 (Mo. App. W.D. 1990); Ascension Health v. Coop. Health Care Ventures, LLC (No. 09SLCC0908, 2009); Perfectstop Partners, L.P. v. U.S. Bank, 231 S.W.3d 260 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); and Teltech, Inc. v. Teltech Comm., 115 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). The cases were all decided prior to Webb.
(Emphasis added.) Jurisdiction under this statute is governed by the place specified for arbitration in the arbitration agreement. If the arbitration agreement provides for arbitration in a state other than Missouri, then Missouri courts have no jurisdiction. Teltech, 115 S.W.3d at 443; H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Mfg. Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 112 (Mo.App. 1990). The statute speaks in terms of jurisdiction to enforce an agreement and to enter a judgment or award thereunder.
Our determination comports with the holdings expressed by courts in other jurisdictions. SeeNorthern Indiana Commuter Transportation District v. Chicago Southshore South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d 680, 694-95 (Ind. 1997) (noting that counterpart section in Indiana Uniform Act essentially enables the parties to control by contract what court may review an action to enforce an award and effectively provides the basis of jurisdiction); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Ky. App. 1991) (holding that the plain meaning of the counterpart provision in the Kentucky Uniform Act reveals that the arbitration agreement must provide for the arbitration itself to be in Kentucky in order to confer subject-matter jurisdiction on a Kentucky court); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co., 785 S.W.2d 110, 111-12 (Mo.App. 1990) (holding that counterpart section of Missouri Uniform Act confers jurisdiction on circuit courts of that state to enter judgment on an award, and concluding that circuit court had no jurisdiction to act where the parties agreement provided for arbitration in New York and not Missouri); see also State ex rel. Tri-City Construction Co. v. Marsh, 668 S.W.2d 148, 151 (Mo.App. 1984);Daniels Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Jordan, 99 N.M. 297, 299, 657 P.2d 624, 626 (1982). The arbitration clause in the parties' contract unequivocally provided for arbitration in New York.